Quote from: EarnOnVictor on November 28, 2024, 08:54:04 AM

Quote from: delfastTions on November 26, 2024, 07:48:44 AM

Quote from: EarnOnVictor on November 22, 2024, 04:33:05 AM

Quote from: Hirose UK on November 20, 2024, 04:54:38 AM

Quote from: romero121 on November 20, 2024, 12:00:00 AM

When a thing turns habitual surely it'll kill time. One such thing had taken place with employee. It is not about gambling, as said whatever he had done apart from his assigned task during the work hours is going to stop his productivity as well as the progress of the firm. This is well understood by the Boss and he had fired the employee.

Yes, all bad habits that are done during working hours will indeed result in decrease in worker productivity, especially if it is gambling activity, they will not focus on what to do because an employee must really maintain professional attitude and of course it is their own risk when the leadership takes some harsh consequences to their worker that makes mistakes.
But in context like this, no one will really know the truth except from the leader himself and his workers, anyone can lie.

It's wrong for employees to engage in some activity during work hours but they still have their lives to live, they can do something at times during their free period during work time or break time, the nature of the job matters and so long as it doesn't affect their job performance, they are good to go in my opinion

Even this guy in the OP claimed that he didn't do it during the work hour and the court did not argue about that except for the use of cryptocurrency. But I wonder when cryptocurrency suddenly becomes an issue in a country like South Korea, if not that the judge is anti-crypto.

It has already been discussed earlier that the mention of cryptocurrency immediately creates negative associations with criminal activity in many people who are completely unfamiliar with it. So it all also depends on how a specific employer or even a judge, as you mentioned, treats cryptocurrency.

I know, it's no news that crypto is being painted black in many spheres, but in this case, I see no reason why a neutral judge would sentence someone due to his crypto involvement in a country like South Korea where cryptocurrency is legal. If not for personal hatred for cryptocurrency, no amount of allegation against crypto use by the employer against the employee should have warranted the judge to deliver such an unfavourable verdict against the employee. This was even painfully off the scope of the suit.

Well, of course, if a judge strictly follows the laws of the country, which he is generally obliged to do simply by performing his official duties and simply based on his status and conscientious consideration of the case, then he should not in any way take into account his negative attitude towards cryptocurrency. Especially when it is legalized in the country and when judicial practice on crimes with cryptocurrency has already been established. But in general, it is difficult to judge the conscientiousness and honesty of a judge in advance, especially when potentially higher judicial authorities, up to the Supreme Court of the country, can challenge and overturn his decision. This is a painful blow to the reputation of the judge and this at the same time and often in some ways distorts the conscientious execution of justice as a whole.